A just-war examination of conscience

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Mar 13, 2026

As this week began, I was distressed by the remarks that Pope Leo made at his Sunday audience: remarks which, I feared, might have conveyed the idea that the Catholic Church had nothing to contribute to the discussion of the war in Iran other than one more idealistic call for “dialogue.” As the week comes to an end, I am now dismayed by querulous remarks from some of the Pope’s critics, who assail him for saying that world leaders involved in waging war should examine their consciences.

In both cases, my dismay has been caused by the failure to recognize that the Catholic Church has a very sophisticated system for appraising moral questions involved with war and peace. Throughout the centuries the Church has not merely mourned the bloodshed and destruction that war causes, but has developed a challenging set of questions to pose to the warring parties. The just-war tradition is eminently practical, demanding, and thorough. Rather than providing quick yes-or-no questions, the tradition furnishes responsible government leaders with an examination of conscience.

On Friday, in an address to the Apostolic Penitentiary, Pope Leo issued the right challenge:

One might ask: do those Christians who bear serious responsibility in armed conflicts have the humility and courage to make a serious examination of conscience and to go to confession?

The Pope urged people—in this case a particular class of people—to make a sacramental confession. Is that controversial? Shouldn’t every faithful Christian examine his conscience on a regular basis? Certainly there is no less reason to consult one’s conscience about decisions that could cost hundreds or thousands of human lives.

Unfortunately the political passions roused by the war—exacerbated by simplistic media reports—prompt many Americans to see the Pope’s words in purely political terms, and read them as another criticism of American policy. Still more unfortunately, some otherwise sensible Christians believe that when war begins, questions about morality are no longer relevant. The hackneyed assurance that “all’s fair in love and in war” is very bad advice. Both love affairs and military campaigns can go horribly wrong, either because they never should have been allowed to begin or because they were conducted badly.

So how can just-war thinking be applied to the war in Iran? Bear in mind first of all that the just-war tradition does not provide easy answers; it asks tough questions. Second, remember that the answers to these questions will be based on our analysis of the information that is available to us. In times of war, we never have as much information as we would like, and we cannot rely on the accuracy of the reports we receive. For this reason the Catechism (#2309) says that the moral responsibility for answering these questions rests with the government officials who are presumed to have the best access to the relevant information: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

What sort of questions should American leaders be asking themselves, as they make this examination of conscience about the war in Iran? Father Gavan Jennings offers a good summary, based on the principles of just-war thinking, in the Catholic Herald. At the risk of duplicating his thoughts, I would suggest asking:

• Just cause: Was there clear evidence that Iran was prepared to attack? Ordinary citizens do not have access to that sort of intelligence data. True, Iranian leaders were threatening “the Great Satan;” but to be fair, the US was threatening them as well.
• Last resort: Had we exhausted every peaceful means of resolving our dispute? Iranian officials claim that they thought we were still negotiating, right up to the moment when the missiles landed.
• Proportionality: Even a quick and decisive military campaign will be terribly costly, in terms of lives lost—not only among the warring countries but also in neighboring lands—and material damage. Will the results—which are nearly impossible to predict with any accuracy—be good enough to outweigh that cost? And can we be confident of that total success? Today the Wall Street Journal quoted Assaf Orion, a former head of Israeli strategic planning: “If this doesn’t succeed, you have to live with the results.”
• Discrimination: In the conduct of the military campaign, are we doing everything possible to spare the innocent, to avoid civilian casualties, to make it possible for a more humane Iranian regime to rebuild the country after the war?

If I held a position that gave me authority over American foreign policy, as I reflected on those questions, I would definitely want to make a good confession.